Sunday, June 1, 2008

Global Warming Bill Doomed

Chances dim for climate-change legislation...and MMGW enthusiasts will decry "The bill was killed by carbon-burning profit-seekers"

But other members of the coalition known as U.S. Cap, most visibly Duke Energy (DUK, Fortune 500), a coal-burning utility, are strongly opposed. "It's going to translate into significant electricity price increases," says Jim Rogers, Duke's CEO.

Bear in mind, one of the reasons the bill had a chance in hell in the first place is corporate sponsorship on the other side of the "green movement" - companies that stand to gain from MMGWH (Man Made Global Warming Hysteria), dubious as their solutions may be.

Businesses supporting Lieberman-Warner stand to profit from clean-energy or energy-efficiency initiatives. GE, for instance, sells wind turbines, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and energy-efficient locomotives and aircraft engines. Just this week, GE and the oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced plans to work together on clean-coal technology.

"In the long run, you want people who burn carbon to pay more," says John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon, the nation's biggest generator of nuclear power. (emphasis mine)

Utility companies Exelon, FPL Group, NRG Energy and PG&E Corp., which signed a letter supporting the bill, are developing nuclear energy, wind or solar power, or so-called clean-coal plants. They would gain as the costs of burning coal in conventional plans goes up. About 50% of electricity in the United States comes from burning coal.

Despite recent evidence of lower temperatures and predictions of same...

In fact, a key purpose of the bill is to put a price on the emissions of greenhouse gases, as a way to speed the transition to a clean-energy economy and slow down global warming. (emphasis mine)

A bill that will slow Global Warming, when in fact it is already reversing? Did the planet make a preemptive move in anticipation of this bill?

What could be the impetus of this bill then?

The Lieberman-Warner bill sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that would reduce them by 70% by 2050. Companies would need permits to emit pollutants that cause global warming. The government would allocate some permits to utilities and industrial companies, and auction others to generate revenues. The question of how to distribute permits and what to do with the money divides even supporters of greenhouse gas regulation. (emphasis mine)

Ah, yes. Permits. Are these permits free? No. They are yet another way of enlarging the federal government and raising revenue without raising taxes. How much of those revenues would find their way into the general fund? Want to take a guess?

It all serves as further evidence that the MMGW movement is not and never was an environmental movement. It has always been a political movement.

No comments: